walking around the foot south lawn. i notice that he was very emotional. and i knew something was big. added on nice if it was happening. i made this image, and received a way that this is still on his face. the president actually spoke to me right after i took this picture. and he said, eric, are you interested in history? of like it's there was yes sir. he said, the pictures you're making are very important. the one in the situation room and hear on the south lawn. and just as he said that and of the core of my right, the secretary of defense and a vice president came walking out of the oval office. president watch over and they had decided the timing of the star of the war. tapis seven is called to the world. i travel to nearly 70 countries with president bush. and on this trip, believe this is 2007, the president's travel to cause of. there's a small town there.

then the first american president to visit that country. you can see air very happy to see him. in such a unique moment that the only time i've seen this many hands and the president. i'm sure this is service. and the final chapter is called spread to the finish. this is the moment that the president leaves the oval office the very last time january january 20th 2009. was there a years earlier today when the president walked to the door for the first time. in through the years i always wondered camino, what would that moment be like. i thought it would be emotional. the crying and hugging. but it was very simple. the president around 8:00 p.m. called for his coat. he put his dogon and walked out without turning '.

and so that is my many slide show. [applause] and, again, i want to thank all of you for coming here. and i want to give special thanks to mary diamond. it has -- has really been a dynamo and got me so much press. she's awesome. and anyway, thank you. thank you again for coming out. [applause] >> we would like to here from you. tweet us your feedback. twitter.com/booktv. you're watching book tv on c-span2. here is our prime-time lineup for tonight beginning at 7:00 eastern, brian michael jenkins

talks about his book, when armies divide. at age 30:00 p.m., we sit down at stanford university to discuss the banker's new clothes. at 9:00 p.m. on after words, lawrence flintridge joins the l.a. times to talk about his book, the price of justice. at 10:00 p.m. eastern conrad black takes a look at the emergence of the united states as a world power, and we conclude tonight's prime-time programming a 1045. immigration from china to oakland, california. it all happens tonight on c-span2 at book tv. >> starting now on book tv, robert kaiser recounts the struggle to pass the dodd-frank law street reformat protection act, following the 2008 economic collapse. mr. kaiser talks about the major players and discusses what he

learned about the workings of the u.s. congress. this is about an hour and 40 minutes. >> i think we will get going. i want to welcome everyone here today. i am as senior fellow here at brookings and a colleague kabobs. we are here to celebrate a great author, a great book, and an extra bury piece of legislation. and this may be one of the most unusual events in washington today because there are two things that people always talk about. one is the decline of legislating, and this book is actually about a successful attempt to legislate a very important and very complicated piece of legislation. and the other thing that we hear a lot about is the decline of journalism. journalists still spend enough time on substance. all but the time and to really explore a story. well, this book does all of those things, and i want said --

the book is on sale outside one of the most important things that a book event is to sell the author's book, especially if you like the author, and i happen to like baba lot. >> and it makes the perfect holiday gift. >> whenever holiday. given to someone for the fourth of july. [laughter] and we are celebrating the fact that congress actually acted on this very important issue and the book tells the story in wonderful detail, not boring detail, but wonderful detail. and for those of you who ever worked as a staffer on capitol hill, you will love this book because they heroes are not only to distinguished legislators called dog and frank, but there are real heroes here. and before i introduce our audience, i want to introduce guests of senator dodd and the fact that they are listed that way shows how much he appreciated staff.

we have ed silverman who was staff director for the senate banking committee. ad, which everybody. lori make grogan, where are you? they are like movie stars to me since i read the book. now i know how important you are. senior adviser or a senior adviser to senator dodd at the mpaa. m. brian d. angeles. no, let's see. we have a bunch of people. brian d. angeles. had we pronounced? >> of a friend's son. >> where are you? welcome. how are you? and jean. thank you, bob. and it is great to have you all here. when you read this book you will realize just how important these people are. >> the last two. >> yes. exactly. let me just introduce our panel, and i will tell you how we're going to proceed today if. we will introduce poppers, and he will sort of give you a sense

of how he came to write this book and sell you a bit of the story followed by senator dodd, and i really appreciate some much your joining us here today. elsa appreciate the fact that senator dodd and barney frank gave bob keyser full access to him all during the fight over the dodd-frank built commute before it was known as dodd-frank. the story of how that actually happened, which is nestled in the book. and then senator dodd will comment followed by my distinguished colleague and another of my favorite people, thomas mann, a senior fellow at the brookings institution. associate editor and senior correspondent at the washington have posted as workers is a 1963. he started right after the day of his birth, i think. he served as a special correspondent in london. reporter on the city desk. a foreign correspondent in saigon and moscow. he is the author of seven books,

including the news about the news, american journalism in peril. the triumph of lobbying in the course of american government and most recently active congress. not on this list is a book he wrote about vegas. yes. so anybody who cares. maybe bring it back into brent parity is a graduate of the a college. he received his message from the london school of economics. senator chris dodd is the chairman and chief executive officer of the motion picture association of america. at one not only guaranteed that his book is made into a movie, but guarantee that senator dodd is played by somebody really, really cool. >> i hope so, anyway. >> bradley cooper. >> we could have nominations. that would be good. but he is -- center served in the united states congress

representing connecticut for 36 years, six years in the house and 30 years and the united states senate. he has authored or co-authored legislation in the areas of education, health and a financial-services, foreign policy, and election reform. you played a decisive role in running the health care reform bill and he was co-author of the dodd-frank wall street and consumer protection act, which is what we're talking about today. thomas mann is the senior fellow in government studies at brookings. he was director of government studies between 1987 and 1999. before that he was executive director of the american political science association. he is the perfect commentator today because he is the author of it's even worse than it looks to me how the american constitutional system collided with the new politics of its present. and i cannot wait for tom to bring that to bear on this.

there were recently named among the 100 top global thinkers of 2012. he earned his b.a. from the university of florida and his ph.d. at the university of michigan. i am utterly biased as a moderator. bob geyser along with david ignatius, partly to of the most important reasons why work for the london post. thomas mann is someone -- i come from massachusetts where politics is not always on the level. tom is on a specialist i have which is people would commit felonies for. fortunately he has never asked me to. no one on that list has ever asked me to commit one. and one of the themes of bob kaisers book is that senator dodd was one of the most popular people in congress. people like senator dodd a lot. and i have always been taught us suppose i should not confess this as a journalist. bob has been one of those people. and so is great to have you will hear. welcome and thank you for coming. >> thank you.

[laughter] responsible and timely. very proud. there is i felt those circulating on the internet. maybe somebody have seen it. a handmade sign, the kind that cheap motels used to advertise free hbo. but this was a pointed message that said, can we just throw congress of the fiscal cliff? i found this -- ipod someone deserved a price for capturing the spirit of the times. as you know, the approval rating in congress now ranges around ten to 15%. i have been thinking about this. you are the approvers? what is it that they are proving? >> they're all in this room, former staffers.

>> it is too easy to joke about it. it really matters. as i say in the subtitle of this book, congress really is our central institution. and it is broken the country is now well governed, and that is serious. this book, this project began with a phone call from barney frank. i have to confess this back in 2009. i met barney just the other day, 1961. we were both still and politicians at the national student congress. of course then 17. about to do his senior year at georgetown. anyway, we stayed friendly from that time on. once his extraordinary career. interestingly i was 18 and he was 21. we both knew exactly what we wanted to do and where both crazy enough to do it.

that was a bigger deal in bari's case because although we did not talk about it at the time, he knew that he was gay and that that would be an impediment to his political ambitions. luckily he got around that ultimately. when he made that phone call he was being a good pal and said, your next book ought to be about this topic. i said, well, that's tough. and he said, all that is going on. it is a huge story. of course in the middle of it because he had just descended two years earlier to the chairmanship of the house financial services committee as dodd had just descended at exactly the same moment to his chairmanship in the senate banking. dodd had to wait even longer, the story that he had to tell. but he really had -- he sat in the sense for 20 a years before becoming chairman of anything.

that might be a world record. finally he succeeded. he was -- you remember him. this is -- description of somebody's heart be once an hour. [laughter] >> a good guy, a rhodes scholar. >> a good way to live a very long time. >> that's the point. if you're trying to get healthy. so to his point, the buck. no, he said, that's your department. so i thought about it. i thought about the fact that both he and todd have made it clear that they wanted to pass some big piece of legislation. the response to the great crash. i realize that the world and really never had a good book in the modern era describing how a bill that made. so i suggested first, how about

if i came into this as an insider. if you let me in for the beginning, your staff cooperate. he talked to me. we will see what happens. party job that this. and i think it's what the ad mind. you is looking for someone he thought might be sympathetic to record this historical event. perfectly understandable. under the circumstances he was a slightly anxious candidate for reelection at this time and had a lousy situation and was nervous. so he said he would cooperate wonderfully, but i asked if he could approve whenever quotations i decided to use remember. a fair deal to me, and we started. in fact, in the end he dropped out of the reelection campaign, he agreed tech check all his

clothes and went through them. in the end i had absolute total cooperation as far as i know. there may be something you want to disclose this afternoon that you have not yet, but as far as i know i got those story. a couple of things in my want to tell me, one of which is lloyd blank's line which we can talk about later. it went extremely well. for me the most important question wherever i have been stationed as a reporter as always been how does it really work? i guess this several times throughout my career. i was the best reporter there for several years during the 70's. but it was a question that i knew had never really been well answered. so that was my ambition. and when i set out to do this, i

was on to see it in a wonderful way, through the eyes of amy and jean, and they and many others, many prison today in a kindly share their time and their brainpower and observations with me. the result was that i was able to write a real adventure story, at least by my standards. in the nicest thing, which aegis said in a way a gain a minute ago, the only complement's i received, the people who say, keep up with this story. at least it's fun to read. but it was not my ambition. my ambition was to explain the culture of congress. rhodopes about this. i argued that the lead is still strong capital is not at all

sympathetic to creative. on the contrary, it is quite hostile. i want to talk for a few minutes about what i find in their culture of this congress, and we can discuss a lot of this letter he would like to. on the most obvious level, the modern congress is redefined by competitive politics. since 94, when newt gingrich first lets the republicans back to power, every biannual election since has been an all-out contest for all the marbles, for all of congress. we now live in the arab a perpetual campaign and constant political warfare. warfare and perpetual campaign costs a lot of money. of course demand demand for money has had an enormous impact on congress, and it is also the

culture of the congress. it affects who runs for the job. today's members have to spend at least a day or two of every week on the telephone dialing for dollars, calling people, mostly strangers to ask for money. senator dodd can tell us more about this, i'm guessing, but i don't think you miss those phone calls. do you think james madison would have made those calls? t think howard baker would have? richard bolling? it is changed congress. we have more wealthy members and a lot of people here do not mind begging for money from strangers . speaking of strangers, a lot of members of congress are strangers from each other, which is a really pejorative feature of an institution composed politicians. but if you leave your family and

home, spend only three of four days a week in washington, and your main preoccupation, you did not make friends across the aisle. loyalty now runs the party, not institutions, not to the house. ethier is a great motivator and congress. and i did not understand this until i saw what happened in this case. crises produce fear. a great crash produced a great crisis. it produced a lot of fear in congress. for most members the greatest fear is that he or she will be blamed for the crisis. probably the first reflex on capitol hill. a genuine crisis increases the political risks of inaction to the point where it can appear even greater the risk of doing

something, even if it proves to be imperfect. that reality helps dodd-frank. congress is a reactive institution. typically reacts to the modern age, proposals from the executive branch rather than taking initiatives of its own. this is not what the founding fathers expected. it is not the normal procedure. i was naive about this. i expected dot and frank to be much more of the initiators then it turned out to be. dodd tried, and maybe he will tell us a little bit about this. initially he made quite a radical proposal, including abolishing all of the existing banking regulators and plumping them and so won regulatory agency. his colleagues, without exception, all dumped on these ideas. so he had to follow a frank's lead eventually and accept the administration's free-market as the template for reform.

the pre-eminence of the executive branch, i realized, is made easier by the general decline of the expertise and policy experience in congress. the triumph of politics over policy as the great lee hamilton described to me. this started to happen in the early 1980's. by now the preeminent politics over policy was obvious. financial regulatory reform, of the 535 members of congress, i don't think there were two dozen who had a really sophisticated understanding of the policy issues covered by the dodd-frank bill. and the numbers are even smaller today because both thought and frank argon. the successes as chairman of the two committees are not remotely their equals.

now non expert members of congress, i discovered, do a pretty poor job processing complicated legislation. in this case, a huge piece of legislation with fundamental consequences for the larger sector of the american economy passed to the house and senate without ever being carefully dissected or debated. the senate banking committee never held a proper account for section by section review of the bill. house financial-services did review legislation. markups were surprisingly cursory. debates in both houses consisted grossly a political posturing. in the end most members have only the sketchiest notion of how the bill might affect the financial sector or wasn't.

as usual, all but a handful voted along party lines. in this case democrats and republicans. another characteristic of this culture, which i think maybe most importance, week members empower staff. staff run capitol hill. ted kennedy revealed this in his memoir. the state secret. i quote him. 95 percent of the real nitty gritty work on legislation is done by the staff. in my story apart from dot and frank personally the people he did the most work or had the most employable legislation were women that almost no one in washington has even heard of. staff director of the financial

services aid and chief counsel. they presided over the careful line-by-lined vetting of legislation that members avoided. staff of the banking financial services committee spent liberally thousands of hours on this bill. hearing that the pleading of lobbyists, a consulting the practitioners and experts, drafting legislative language, consulting the administration and officials. considering the political implications of various policy options and more. in this case i think i may have done more than 95 percent of the work. another characteristic of the culture may seem counterintuitive. the fact that most members of the house and senate are in different to policy and ineffective legislating does not seem to matter. as our politics have degenerated into tribal rivalry to realities

of budgets, tax policies, global warming, for military adventures do not often make an appearance in the one area where politicians still really care. the elections today are almost never resolved on the basis of the serious debate on policy. slogans, emotions, and 302nd tv spots are much more important . even as smart, a serious member, and there are quite a few of them, the majority and not enough, but they continue to campaign themselves on the issues. here is the most fundamental reality of the culture of congress that think that is covered here. this is an utterly human institution.

id influx a huge, vibrant, and diverse human society in the united states of america. congress is representative in every sense of the word. it represents a nance and emotion, crass materialism and moral corruption as well as the noble qualities of the electorate. we do not get in the house and senate any better than we are. in this case i think the country was lucky peridot and frank were remarkable leader said minister bring home an important bill. there were both crucial to the success of the scent. and i am grateful as a citizen and as an author. but, of course, neither of them will be around for us next time. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you.

>> so, senator dodd, your revenge for bob's theory as been all downhill since your first elected in 1974, to reveal how many of the quotes attributed to you or made up. >> i love your response. [laughter] >> well, first of all, thank you for inviting me to be a part. brookings, it is a great thrill. event an opportunity over the years to be invited here on various occasions, and it is nice to come back to be with this very distinguished panel. tom and i have known each other for years and years gone back to my house stays where i was the campaign manager for the majority leader. the 70's. i have been a fan of yours obviously for years. i got to know bob and have known him over the years, but never as close as we have gotten to know each other over the past couple of years. you're right. it was a risk. i have been around long enough to know that this bill, had it not become law, as we all know,

the feed is an orphan. only one name would have been mentioned in the book, and that is the chairman of the banking committee for failure. the jury, obviously has a lot of authors. first of all, i was not enthusiastic about having my name on the bill, not because i do not like it. i think it is a good bill, but i think it is so deceptive in describing a piece of legislation with two names on it so many more people involved, including my colleagues, which i will get to in a minute. 4:00 in the morning will we were just finishing at the conference report on this bill that congress man can georgia but he made the motion to call this bill the frank died bill. barney is always -- no, you can't do that. up think it's one person. and i said to my note, don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. no one ever remembered how his

name. and a wretched memory of that particular legislation back many decades ago. and the reason i say, i expressed at the time. and but is directly it is kind of interesting that is only in this area of law, it seems to me, that names are associated with bills. so we go back to glass stiegel, sorbonne oxley. ..

>> whether or not it is on the public's mind or not. it has to do with this institution. prior to the events of 2007 and 2008, there have been people talking about reforming the financial stuff with the country. there was never that urgency that crisis brings. obviously, the events of 2006 and 2007, particularly, all of a sudden it created that window of opportunity. and you couldn't write it today. because of where the public's attention is and the energy is. there is a moment that arrive arrived after the consideration of the t.a.r.p. legislation. i think that in the spring of 2007, they had a financial

blueprint of a financial reform package. which we looked at and i will take some issue in terms of this administrative proposal. most of the major provisions came out of the hearing process of other conversations with the exception of volcker rule and others. you know, that was the moment in which we decided to move forward. we had a health care bill coming up in between and we began to do a hearing process. he was the majority and actually had hearings on this. no one paid any attention to it. in 2007 when i became the chairman, sitting next to joe biden on three different committees for 20 years, never even got close to being the chair. we either have to outlive this

at the time we have 49 democrats and two independents. we are now looking at these hyperboles this is the end of the st. patrick's day weekend it

was six months later to the day this is the most critical meeting at all that occurred about 7:00 p.m. and the speaker of the house yesterday whether you agree with that analysis or not, this is just a casual observer and the most important bank in the world and it said

that 130 in the morning, he just had $700 billion. >> i know that with the senate update, i thought it was that significant as a moment. comparable to the constitutional amendment. and you know, sometimes that is just all you can do in regards to this.

like i told him. it he said he you are a great author come i really appreciate it. but i don't know how to explain my vote. and i said, what if we left now and we just see you in the morning. and he said, okay. let's see what we can do. he voted for it.

i have a herculean job of producing 67 votes in the united states senate. but i have numbers to work with and it is a huge number to try to get to something this complicated. anything of this nature. to say this vote is always now. you can identify those issues if you want. the plan was that we were going to divide up this what the democrats and republicans and i announced with the foreign relations committee and i assigned responsibilities if

they become co-authors, they try to craft the legislation. we had a big portion of the white house, but something that i didn't have to do, and had a series of 20 recommendations. and i have a lot of recommendations for what is going on. but we also need to lead and leave and we need to have a set of guidelines.

we are primarily dealing with europe and the united states in the next crisis, when it comes, and that well, it will involve far more than just europe and the united states. it will involve india and brazil and china. if we don't end up with this, it will be almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to globalization. that was very much the guiding view of mine as we move forward in drafting legislation. so i will be eternally grateful to democrats and republicans on the committee, it even though we didn't get as much support. bob corker, to his great credit, he decided he that he wanted to be a part of the effort. i have great affection for him. i have never really asked him to direct questions. i have my own views and ideas. but i'd rather hear from him on why he decided not to necessarily be a constructive part of the crafting of the bill. bob bennett sat next to him and

he had done doing a remarkable job. he had a very constructive and conservative member of the senate. but he was facing a dreadful political situation in utah. jim bunning sat next to him, he had his own views on financial services. and then you had mike and you had others on the committee as well. we are putting together a working group. i am grateful to bob corker. that is very much a part of what we move forward and forth. you have 60 amendments, consider that's on the florida house. it went on for about 10 days. and again, there were serious amendments adopted. some 10 republicans who contributed directly.

not every idea was incorporated. but the things like the federal oversight committee, that idea came out of this and the whole idea of it to do this to do the resolution authority. it was objected to by the administration. the idea that the consumer financial protection bureau would be constructive where i was, it is again a republican idea what the administration and down the line. it was also financial resources and an idea that came out of this bit is not widely known for

who actually voted for this. including who was involved in cracking mess. it is a lot of effort with the names. if you look at those who voted yes or no. so it is important to note this. i think countless hours would call list. do i agree with all of them? this can be part of the individuals who think that we went too far it is a great deal of effort.

i just wanted to one anecdote about the volcker rule and why we ended up with this. >> the president agreed for them the volcker rule shouldn't be changed at all, some of them said.

i know that is not a terribly intellectual argument for it. but i think that we have to keep this in mind. i might have lost one vote. it is one of the 60 votes and we are sitting around talking about what might've been the regulators will be working it is a complex and very important necessity.

it is very important that we understand these issues. we are talking about derivatives and swabs and all sorts of questions in training and so forth. not only does this attract a wide following, but the members of the congress, in the face of 2009 and 2010, we have built the health care bill and financial reform and i was involved in that two-year period. i managed it on the floor of the senate and i managed the mental health parity bill. and i wrote the iran sanctions legislation.

members of congress do their very best. the best ones carved out areas where they developed an expertise teddy kennedy obviously comes to mind. and you know, i disagree. i want to just take issue. this is the one thing that i know about it. the senate and the congress, there is not any state trajectory on the senate heading

with a great direction or bad direction but let me just make a historical argument to put it in the 1960s, to argue about this, this is seven or eight years in the 20th century. the voting rights act, medicare, other educations educational issues.

if you compare them in the 1950s or 1960s, before people decide it's never going to get better dealing with the modern technology that exists, and i totally agree that often there is a responsibility of raising money to get elected or reelected.

we are living in a time when this is so denigrated on an hourly basis. it's hard to get anyone to say anything positive about this role. it is a demeaning process. if they are willing to be involved on the debate of the country, not enough happens. but i do see the institutions made up and making a difference what the circumstances. there are many critical observations about this. and i think we need to have a longer and historical view about this. they recognize that they, too, there are some other issues.

but i realize all of the things that have been said about it, i also believe that this current membership can have some very significant moments and right equally as good if not better legislation with dodd-frank legislation. thank you very much. [applause] >> i think that he took the most unpopular position ever. he defended the congress of the united states. and this is a treat. it is certainly a treat for me to listen to bob and chris. and it is a treat for you. there is a lot here that a lot

of important relevance and i want to underscore this to make sure that we need to be clear. what i think about the book, he sent me page proofs and it was part of the production. and he just sent it to me and believe it or not, he sent it to me on vacation. in tucson, arizona, i got over my computer and i wrote this e-mail to him. i said that congress is easily the best book that i have read in decades. and it is a stupendous achievement richly informative and a pleasure to read.

assessments of why dodd-frank was able to succeed and how this faces more exception than the rule in this governing time. i ended by saying that generations of students agree that it is one of the most rewarding experiences. the book read like a novel. in the me tell you, we know what novels replied. it is much more interesting and informative that frank dodd had to sit through. and the difficult conference that they had to get through as well. the richness, the interaction,

one comes away and at times doesn't always get that close. there is an understanding of this institution and this broader process. but it also contains a serious analytic treatment of congress and there is a political context that is very important. the last chapter is called still broken. that is where he develops the notion of the culture of congress. his emphasis on the culture of congress turns eyes away from other things that he says. but i think they are more consequential unimportant. just remember the culture of congress didn't change between

the 112th congress, but its it's day and night, it's because the context dominates the republican house and made it impossible for anything to happen. the culture is more a symptom of what is going on. with it comes an entirely clear sight of what is driving the culture. we are talking about the emergence of this, which came after that great period that chris dodd referred to in which there was no overlap that a leader could can work with any other party. because everyone was -- they

were a part of this. during that period of time, the democrats were in control big-time, large majority of them. house and the senate democrats had been in control since eisenhower's first term. and republicans are kind of tame. they had to do business and a lot of them had made a huge difference and they had that number in the house as well. but when we got the parity, first with the senate and the 1988 election, and the 1994 election, suddenly either party could win a majority. that is what turned members of congress, many of them from

being problem solvers and legislators. they were under such pressure under this legislation. the one amendment could determine if we are part of majority or not. bob talks about this, but he didn't say were during the presentation about kaiser and "the washington post" and the biggest change in american politics has been the transformation of the republican party. and he says it in great detail. and it's a reality that you have to face up to. it complicates the task of governing. so i don't disagree with bob's rich description when his analysis. it is all right there. i do think that he is slightly under emphasizing all of this.

because then you don't seem to be in balance. many of the colleagues do that. now, let me turn to chris. chris dodd is generally a man and his is far from the first major bill that he passed. he has a record of being on the labor committee of family and medical leave and immunization and they carry a host of issues and you can find the same thing in the area of foreign policy as well. this is the same thing that we

have talked about. so he should remain optimistic and he has been a part of getting things done. even sends congress changed and the senate changed in such a fundamental way. i kept asking myself that chris really believed that he could cut a deal and make it stick when mitch mcconnell had announced at the beginning of the year to forget it. as republicans, we are not playing ball and i thought it was brilliant to put together the senators on the committee and they did good work. but not a single one of them voted for the final bill. if they can have a hand up and walk away from it. if you haven't managed to put together but the republicans

that you did and somehow keep the democrats on board, and he did so much work to do that. their absence would lead to a complete failure. so i am not quite as bullish on the republican side as curses. it is a tough job in this environment when the filibusters, which used to be part of this, it became a little bit more frequent. then it took off in 2009 and everything was subject to this threshold. many things got done in earlier times would not have happened under this environment. and some of this had no chance with all of the reporting about what obama did or didn't do, it

was largely irrelevant to the reality that the context had changed. we have the pseudo- crisis with the debt ceiling and the public downgrade of our debt. in the sequester. ..

but members who are uninformed wouldn't have been able to make use of them in that fashion. and then to work it into the broader process. so, yes, i'm saying, if we have a lot of members who aren't informed, and we do, and if we have a lot of silly talk on the floor that is pure sound bite and prepared lines, repeated again and again, thank god that we have some able people who care about the institution. i'm just worried we don't substitute for gene and amy a bunk of idealogues who don't obtain the expertise and work to try to develop legislation that has a shot at it. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> i know there are a lot of people in the audience who have

some real expertise her. i want to want to report the most interesting new organization i learned of from this book, only in washington, dc would we create the coalition for derivative end users, which bob describes, and in fact i never expected a book to make the battle over derivatives look like a cliff-hanger. it's a fascinating story. it truly is. don't take my word for it. read the book. bob and i have a long-standing argument, i'm tempermentally skeptical of golden age theories of any institution. we talked about the campaign process. richard nixon ran against the pink lady, one opponent was attacked for having a sister who

was a thespian. >> a vicious campaign. we have had -- and so, i don't want to get into that, but i just want to sort of put that out there a because -- and if bob wants to send a golden age theory i'll let him. but i wanted to ask related questions to bob and senator dodd. when you look at this whole story and examine the various compromises made, i'd like you to talk about where you think the bill was harmed, if you will, by necessary compromise. talking about the 3% rule, the lowest you could go and still hold scott brown's vote on the derivatives. and i want to ask a similar question of senator dodd -- two questions.

one is, how different would this bill have been if you could have passed it with 51 votes? do you have some thoughts -- a couple of examples what you might have done differently, but just how would that process have been different, better or worse? and have you changed your mind at all about the filibuster? you have up to now been a defender of the existing rule, and bob suggests in the book that you were getting impatient with it, and that was before the last year. so, i'd like to ask you those two questions. but, bob, if you could talk about going through all of this. where did you see the necessary compromises potentially doing damage to the bill? >> let me say first, i, too don't belief in golden ages. i believe in more golden. and we're in the less golden one at the moment. this is -- this question raises

what for me has been a tricky problem throughout. i am not and never have been an expert on financial regulation. i've had some wonderful teachers, many of them in this room, who helped me understand the issues here. but i really don't know to this day, with one exception i'm going to mention, where there's a weak spot on this bill, where there's something that is really wrong, and and i think has chris and barney have said to me, we'll only know for sure if we have another crisis but a a lot of the provisions are taking on hypothetical problems that have never arisen. one really interesting agrege yous -- egregious case, and then i'd like chris to talk about it. was the compromise he probably had to make, that was never a

compromise, nothing ever happened and that was the compromise. it was blanch lincoln running for re-election, and they needed the seat. and because of this, some really bad language on derivatives is still in the bill. julie chong, a key staffer who taught me this, is in the third row here. >> he made you a hero. i wanted to meet you. >> so, julie was driven to distraction by this because she knew what was wrong and nothing do coo be done. and they kept hoping maybe in the conference committee there would be a chance to fix this, and there never was. so i'm sure that a critical analysis of the text, the worst

provision is the derivatives provision, and it's because of this political accident. the other compromises that i know about, and wrote about, all seem to be justifiable. this 3%, 4%, nobody has any idea. voelker had a wonderful line, proprietary trading -- which means a bank playing the markets with its own money -- very hard to devine, saud voelker, but i know it when i see it. [laughter] >> that a little too glib. in fact it's extremely difficult to say this transsection is proprietary and this one is not and that what the regulators are struggling with now, trying to right the rule as a functioning regulation. so, it was compromise. it wasn't what paul voelker

wanted but he accepted it, and i think it's fine, it's okay. and the other ones are similar. the biggest compromise that was made from the outset here, which i write about but don't dwell on -- both chris and barney, for their own reasons, decided at the outset that they were not interested in a revolutionary reconstruction of the financial sector of the united states. now, they were not interested in breaking up the big banks. they were not interested in restoring glass stiegel, and that's a good argument. there's not an open and shut case in my opinion for restoring glass stiegel. so, they did something which the liberal activists -- it was a copout, which they can defend are articulately, and chris will if he wants to. but it was a big compromise. not to do what fdr and ben cohen

and that gang decided to do, which was really shake up the existing realities, change them, make them different than they were. they built on systems that existed. they did not transform it. it's very different now, and it's recognize blue the same system. and i think that was very much a part of the politics of the situation, and also the preferences of the two chairman and the administration. everybody is on the same page on that one. that's all. >> well, a couple of points. i mean, an awful lot said there. regarding the big banks -- the last point. in fact, when we established the financial services oversight board, we game them extraordinary power. part of my thinking in this, came up in the hearing process, and the staff worked on the

proposal. nothing in this legislation that prohibits the next crisis. they will happen. the question is, can we get a tourniquet on the problem before it metastasizes into the problem this became. in response to the residential mortgage crisis it would have ban crisis but far less of one than what occurred because of failing to address the problem when it existed. the idea of federal oversight is obviously to have an organization made up of the treasurery and the other regulatory bodies that meet regularly, and there was, again, some upset reactions at treasurery when they weren't chairing it. but to me periodically, and look over the life, and say what's occurring out there. our institutions taking on greater risk than they ought to? are there product lines emerging which could -- pose significant

risk, and then you could react instead of faced with dreadful alternatives as we we are in 2008. so it was very important in my view we have that capacity, and that was an example of that ability. but all 60 amendments, with the exception of one on the floor of the senate, i insisted that every one be accepted or rejected on a 50-moat margin, and everybody one, except one. which was 60 votes because those involved insisted on it and it actually carried. at least -- i let people talk in the senate. unless they got so dilatory in the process i'd call them on it. to their great credit, very few did. but never -- prove you can take a major bill, actually debate it in a full way on the floor of the senate, and you could

actually then vote up or down with 50 votes. the final bill required a 60-vote margin to pass the legislation, unfortunately. so the question what would have happened if it was 51? if i had four or five, six, seven, eight republicans decided they wanted to work on the bill -- not to rewrite the bill but work on the bill with a little more freedom than they were being given by the leadership, the bill might have been different in the derivatives area a little bit, maybe the voelker rule a little bit. hard to say exactly where the changes would have occurred. and it was disappointing, and i did try to reach out to people, and to her credit, susan collins wanted to write provisions for the bill and she voted. olympia snow cared about small business. had some provisions in that. we worked those in the bill and she supported the bill. sam brownback had elements dealing with the congo, dick luger with distractive

industriesed. you can argue it amounted to corporate governance, and we had provisions incorn operated. so normally in a process, having been through many of them over the years, in the minority, if you get provisions in the bill, and significant ones, you may not like everything else but your innings is to be supportive that major idea of yours has been incorporated. that didn't happen. i regret that. i think it's important when talking about the history of the legislation that there are significant provisions in the bill that were crafted and written by the minority and that's not insignificant in my view. now, the filibuster. and i'll be quick on this. i served under every imaginable configuration you can in congress and the white house in 30 years. every imaginable one, where i was in the majority, the minority, house and, presidents and republicans, and you could move it around in every possible

configuration i served on. and i'm a great believer that the bicamera idea, made by oliver ellsworth and sherman, to save the constitutional convention, had the right idea that the houses, the rules guarantee the rights of the majority. i served on the rules committee. brilliant idea that down the hall we created another body that would have equal representation of all states and where the rights of a minority, including a minority of one, would be sacrosanct, forcing the institution of congress to deliberate before there was a tyranny in the majority. and having served all these different configuration, i found it interesting that those in the majority want to get rid of the filibuster. spend a few years in the minority and you want to get rid of it when ideas come along that are dreadful, can do great

damage to the country. so this is a rough period we're in, and i don't disagree. saddens me to watch. but i also have a lot of confidence it can come around and come back, and when it does i hope you don't confront the united states senate, which has been so neutered in the appropriation it looks like a uni-camera process. just a mirror reflection of the house of representatives. the senate works under nance consent. it's the willingness of the members of the institution to make it work. and right now what you have had three times in the pearlart of the 21st century, 1948, 1981, and you're seeing it now, where you have almost supermajorities made up of first-term senators, and it happenin' 1948, 20s '44 and 48, and between 76 and 81, and happening this year. next year automatically you'll have 54 senators in first term.

when you have that kind of a distortion, with so many new members and fewer members have been around long, it's a discipline of the institution that moderates the behavior of new members in some ways, so you end up with a few flow of new and old members coming in. i'm not suggesting longevity but you get a flee, a certain amount of members have been around a while and new members come in, and you learn the rivers of the institution. it's not governed by rules but by the willingness of 100 people to sit together and achieve a common point of view and drive to get there. i take some great pride in the last few weeks i was in the senate there was a century tray done -- not for -- was a survey down and it asked who is the most bipartisan member of the senate and who is the most partisan member of the senate. i won both polls, and i don't object to the outcome because i believe some of the best senators historically were people who believed deeply in

what they cared and were willing to fight about it but willing to compromise to get something done. so i know there's a temptation, frustrations with the nomination, who gets confirm. >> wonder if have to have senate confirmation of a ambassadors, and they can communicate with each other on cell phones minute by minute in the state department. you look at how you might reduce the number of senate confirmation and reduce the number of filibusters that occur. but i just urge people not to get so caught up in the moment that you really fundamentally alter what has been a chit important institution, where the rights of minority, debate occurs and think can carefully about what we're going to do. changing it would be great loss. >> i wanted to pull these numbers on just this question. bob notes that as recently as the congress of the 1969-70.

fewer than 15 cloture motions were filed in the senate. in the are 80s they never exceeded 60 in one congress. after the democrats regained control in 2007-2008, they shot up to 132349 the 110th 110th congress. hasn't this changed already? you're saying you like the way the senate work, but the senate doesn't work like it did anyway. this is a wholly new world. i wanted to ask bob what he thought about the filibuster. >> i can't argue with the numbers. i understand them. but you're asking me to accept is because we're going through this, -- and those numbers are dreadful -- you're going to take an institution that has given us the kind of protection against very bad ideas historically because there was a place where you had to think twice about what you were doing to me you give that up and you lose a great deal. i tell you, it depends on where you set whether these are great rules. abuse is terrible. but the leadership and the

ability of people to know each other, something you and bob pointed out, which i find one of the worst conditions, and that is you got a staggering number of people now who arrive monday night or tuesday morning, leave thursday night for friday morning, and don't know each other at all. no institution, public or private, survives where there is not the kind of social interaction, critical to its success, and here the only two people who know each other is what party they belong to and what ideology they embrace. they don't know about what they care about, hobbies, kids, basic things that any institution needs to be successful, and so me that does an awful lot of damage in the process. when i arrived -- the united states government paid for two round-trip tickets a year to your state. now if you want to go home, you pay for them out of your own pocket. there was a value in that. you got elected to come. didn't get elected to city

council in the up to you're from, and you're supposed to come here and spend the time. now you can go back -- if you can think of a reason to see three people with a public purpose on the saturday morning, the federal government will pay for your airline ticket to do that. that's ludicrous in my view. you need to be able to see to people, yaw want to go back home, pay for it personally. but people need to spend time here. you have now 70 or 80 house members living in their office and i egret they drought bring their families to town, and i understand. it's very expensive. that alone could have an alteration on the numbers. >> bob, i want to go to the audience. do you have any thoughts on the filibuster? >> one quick thought. chris said a key thing. the senate operate when it operated well on unanimous rule because of a shared loyalty to

institution. the loyalty is no to party, not to institution, and the difference is profound. and, therefore, i'm more sympathetic -- i haven't seen the perfect solution yet that it can be changed. >> thank you. so, -- everyone, please identify themselves. thank you, sir. >> i'm garrett mitchell and i write the mitchell report. i want to push on this point where i think we are now, and that is, as i look on the stage and the points of view that have been articulated from bob kaiser talking about the greatest change has been in his time watching congress, the change in the character of the modern republican party, and tom and norm's book about it's worse than it looks, and senator dodd's point about we might call

it the baby in bathwater argument -- is all good and well. going back to potter stewart's notion about -- i don't know what it is but i know it when i see it -- i suspect every one of us sees it. my question is to either/or mr. kaiser or senator dodd, if we could agree that it ain't working, and it ain't working because it is -- that too many changes have taken place so that the character of the senate that your father knew and you knew when you came in, as an example, is gone. what nominations would we make from this panel of changes that could be made and that in either the house or the senate, that

would make some difference that would nudge us towards, if not a golden era, a less cor -- coastsive one that we're in. it seems to me the -- this is not a time to follow ronald reagan's, don't just stand there, do nothing, or whatever the hell it is. so, anyway, that's my -- >> thank you. >> you mentioned reagan. that's for me that's where this starts. reagan's first inaugural. the government is not the problem. it's not the solution. it's the problem. we have cultivated over the last 40 years a hostility to government in our culture. it's never been absent. it's been there from the beginning. but its intensity has increased

dramatically in modern times, and the result is that, really, a majority of the new members of the 112th, 113th congresses, i think, don't believe in the efficacy of government. they think government is something only to be shrunk and they see no good coming from it. this is a perfectly acceptable philosophical proposition, but if that's the membership of your governing legislature, you're not going to get much good government. and that's where we are. so i think, unfortunately i'm asked this everywhere on my become tour now, how we solve this. the only real solution i can commend with a straight face, we have to develop a sense of citizen involvement in public life in this country, that's been absent for quite a while. why do people put up with he money issue? why there is no popular

revulsion against the obvious buying of our political system? by the rich and the powerful? you can't debate that. that's happened. so where is the uproar? where is the revolt? until we see one, we're in trouble. >> well, a couple of things. the money issue, bob articulated and having been through it, over through eight elections over the years -- nine elections, actually -- it's a -- there's a fairly cor -- corrosive quality to it. it's not a time spent more than anything else i worry more about that, where you have these members having to go day after day and making calls to raise the money. that is so debilitating in my view. let me mention a couple of things i think would have value. one, you're're seeing some change in california and iowa, for instance, the notion of

reapportionment and drawing congressional lines. the old gerrymandering process, going back to the 18th 18th century. but to me, it gave you -- only 40 house seats you could actually call competitive in the sense where you have a democrat or republican could win. the rest of them you worry about our primary and that's it. so you're getting people -- has a tendency to have the opposite effect on what should be happening, is forcing people to the extremes rather than bringing people -- listening to minority voices is very important. i even regret to some degree the new modern campaigns, as we saw in the last one, can become so scientific that when you go to elm street to go door-to-door you only have to go two two or three and they either for you or against you. and i think it's valuable to knock on a door and have someone

open it up and tell you how wrong they think you are. i think that's very valuable in a political process, and i you eliminate that to a large extent. if you don't have to listen to what other people think about an idea -- because you're only talking to your own audience -- we suffer. so readjusting the lines could do a tremendous amount. the money question as well, i think, is critically important. and then again, just this notion of, again, falsely built into the institution the kind of camaraderie by creating sort of happy hours and so forth, and i think there's a phoniness to that, that has to happen more legitimately. i just tell you one quick story, anecdote mist first week in the united states senate, and it as a luncheon, and in my last years in the senate i used to take all the new members down and show them the room where we hat

lunch. a table for the democrats, table for republicans. no one religiously used the tables but you couldn't bring your staff, just members, and i go over and there's patman handand ted kennedy and scoop jackson all sitting around, others, giants in the senate, john glenn, and i was the only -- the only seat at the table was the chair at the head of the table, and i've got my little tray in my hand and i'm going, don't think so. i'm not walking up to the head of the table, but there's no other chair at the table. so i'm sitting there -- looking stupid after what seemed like an hour. i said, i better just sit at the head of the table. nobody was talking. i sit down in the chair and the entire table goes, you can't sit in that chair? what are you thinking of? don't you know whose chair that is? and my knees are rattling. i said, whose chair is it? he said that chair belongs to

chairman jim eastland. i said, he died. they said, we know but he may come back, and they roared laughing. they had been waiting all average -- george' to walk in. i know it sounds like boy school stuff, and that table was like a phn politics because there was the ribbing that went on, the story-telling and also that -- you've got that idea and i've got this one and ways of doing things. like any other institution, if you can somehow magically bring some of that back, and you do so because you eliminate the highly subsidized return trips for people. we had fun with each other. i had one senator on the day i left came up to me on the floor of the senate. he said you're leaving, i'm coming, what's your advice, kind of jabbing me. i said my big advice year freshman in the minority. no one is going to pay much

attention to you and if i were you i'd pick out the 20 people on this side of the aisle you think are thor most opposites and invite them to breakfast, lunch and dinner, you'll learn you like them a lot, two, you can agree with them on even far more than you can imagine, and as a result of the first twoor, do things together here. that makes this job enjoyable and the country is counting on that activity. i don't know whether he did it or not but to me that is the critical component in many ways, deciding, john ashcroft is my cosponsor on lifting the ban on travel to cuba. i asked him, made mymy brilliant argument. he said, put me on the bill. i said were you impress bid my brilliance? he said, no, i got a bunch of rice farmers who want to sell their rice to cuba. but i had never found the answer unless i talked to him. and we had the relationship with each other, we can have that

conversation. it's labor intensive but all the new technology, it's still member-to-member, and you've got to spend time with each other. >> tom, hold off for a minute. we're close to our time. in fact we're about to pass. i'd like to bring in sort of several voices at once. this gentleman, this gentleman, those two folks over there i'm sorry for the others and, tom, we'll just go down the panel. we have to end in a reasonably timely way. >> thank you, professor wayne glass from school of international relations, university of southern california, former policy advisor to senator jeff bingaman. rules are not etched in stone but changed over time. senator berkeley made reform efforts to change the filibuster rule that would require those who choose to fill buster to filibuster to make it more difficult for those who choose to do that. from outside the beltway,

congress seems to be broken because we won't even debate the major issues of the day. your statistics were instructive in that regard. what are chances of any filibuster reform or is the culture such there will be no reform and we'll continue to go in the same direction? >> can you hold your thought? i want to bring the these people at once so we get them in. this young man at the front, right over here. if you don't mind being called a young man. i'd love to be called a young man. >> thank you. good afternoon. i'm james reid, student at george washington university. make this quick. there's a deficit of financial literacy in our country so i was wondering how the bill addresses that, if there's any key players in congress that have dealt with that or if anyone during the drafting dealt with that. >> the gentleman on the aisle, and then i think there was one, and then that lady. >> thank you. larry check, checker communications. i was just wondering, senator dodd, if there's any awareness on capitol hill as to how

frustrated and angry the population is, the voters are, while we're waiting for 535 men to go from adolescence to maturity? it's really -- while they're debating, there are millions and millions of people suffering out here. thank you. >> and this lady over here. by the way, there are lot 0 more women now in that 35. >> i'm a law student at american university. my question was to you, senator. if you can give some advice on new folks trying to lobby congress, i am new in the career but i'm very interested in learning and helping congress understand the other side to middle east and muslim issues. >> good for you. here's what i'm going to do. we've got the filibuster again, financial literacy, do members of congress understand how frustrated people are, you might tell that great story of

visiting ted kennedy's grave at the end, how you made your decision. it's my moment for the academy award winning movement in the movie of the book. and do lessons in lobbying. can i just go down the panel and also you could all sort of take these questions in any direction you want. let me start with tom, who -- and then go tom, senator, and bob. just two comments on the filibuster. >> prospects sponsor -- spot suspects for change are not good. reid still doesn't have the 51 votes he would need in cooperation with the chair of -- sitting in the chair of the vice president to in effect create a new precedent in the senate that would allow some alterations in the way nominations are handled. so, i think the pressure is

coming from the bright, young, new democrats who are really unhappy about how their institution is working. the one change that would be good is not making them filibuster. it's making the filibustering party produce 41 votes and not forcing the other party, trying to do business to produce 60 votes. on a recurring basis. that would make a huge difference and there is a chance at that. so, one last comment. bob and chris both had wise things to say about money, and noncompetetive seats and redistricting and other things, and i am a proreformer, but my view is, for the foreseeable future, the best route of

change, if i'm correct, that a large majority of americans do not support, a dramatic construction in the size and role of government in their lives. if i'm correct, the route is with them being led by ted cruz, rand paul, and mike lee, the republicans will decline. they will not regain the senate. they will lose their next presidential election and they will lose the house. at some point. the majorities may be large enough for democrats to govern, even in the senate, under those circumstances. if that happens, republican -- some republicans will feel obliged to do business with them and you'll begin to try to set a new dynamic, which will allow new voices more problem-solving, moderate conservative voices to

emerge in the party to get us back. it's either a dominant one-party democratic system to get some things done, or slowly or quickly a situation in which the republican party returns to its sanity. >> jeff is a great senator. wonderful, wonderful united states senator. good friend. so glad you're here today. some of the ideas from alexander was working with chuck schumer who made some suggestions, first on the motion to proceed. having a filibuster is ridiculous. get to the substance of the bill. so various things make sense. i think the idea of having to get up there and talk and -- the majority can make you do that as well. the idea that you let people off the hook by when someone says

they're filibusters and then you shut the thing town with a quorum call. you should make them do it, and listen to the argument. with regard to financial literacy, great question, and senator dana caca of hawai'i used to never on this -- i have very young children. other i'm the only guy i know who gets mail from aarp and diaper services. my two little girls, i don't see any reason why they couldn't be learning financial services in their math classes, on how to balance a checkbook, that we ought to incorporate. not to the point not just do members understand this but the general public understanding what goes on. so a very good point, and one that we talked a lot about it, has been some resolutions on it, but nothing in a meaningful way that would require along the process.

getting angry at constituent sis. i you don't have to face the opposition, it's the old knocking on the door and have the screen door bang in your nose. not a bad thing to have happen. no one likes that, it's uncomfortable but it's healthy. today, given the mechanics of politics you can avoid actually meeting anybody who is angry. you can just see your own folks in the process. and i think we all suffer as a result of that a little bit and the political debate and discussion. i do think people get it and understand it. people over the last few years the level of anger, people have sensed it. we saw it in august of 2009, with the town hall meetings that exploded. "occupy wall street" as well. most americans don't fit in either one of those groups. not going to scream at their congressman and not going to put up a pup tent in lafayette square, but they're frustrated by thing not working, and, again, based on the conversation i had, people seem to get it.

lastly, on your point here -- first of all, thank you for raising the issue. i happen to -- i'm sorry the word lobbyist has become a pejorative. the first amendment insists that people petition government, and obvious obviously lobbyists who are well paid and take advantage of the situation but you're well-served. if you have enough sense to listen to one, good lobbyist will give you good, accurate information. they have a point of view but the ones i was willing to lisp to i found helpful. one thing we did in the financial reform bill here, eddy -- every person that wanted to see the committee during that year and a half to bring up a point, we made sure they had a chance to get in our office to talk. i didn't meet with them all because it would have been endless, but ed did and the staff did. julie, you did. all across the spectrum on the derivatives. i felt strongly people ought to have the right to be heard on

these matters and not everyone gets to be a witness in a congressional hearing. and so i believe that lobbying is an important point that people ought to be able to express themselves, raise important facts to you along the way. so i'd urge you, keep your facts straight. make shire your accurate. don't take a long time to make your point. there's only so much time. and find ways to lobby back in a person's district or their state. what more apt to remember what you tell them on their home turf than in their office here. so gifting into the senator's state that are involved and care about the issues you do, is to leave a more indelible impression than one when you're a long list of people they may see on a busy day. but be accurate. make sure your information is good. the one way i never let anyone back any office agains was if they weren't hospital and didn't have information i could count they weren't honest and didn't have information i could count on to be accurate. people with good information were factually correct, even

though they had a different point of view, welcomed back but i'm upset we don't understand and are losing or appreciation of the value of doing exactly what you described you'd like to do, to talk about an issue you care deep live about. >> thank you. >> bob, closing remarks. >> i want to say something about -- we talk about something quoted -- about the transformation of the republican party being the biggest political threat in -- political event in my lifetime. the second is the growth of the number of americans who refuse to identify with either party. we have a real centrist, independent group now in the electorate that don't want to be called republicans or democrats, and i think democrats particularly, and a number of our good commentators on the left, are too soft on the

democratic party and its corruption, and on the fact that a great many of ordinary americans don't see enough of a difference between the two parties in their attitudes about money and politics particularly. now, policy issues so much as procedural issue and the nature of politics, and this is a big price the democrats are now paying, and they have to face up to it. >> i didn't -- i should have said this in the outset and i apologize. i was blessed in this whole process of having a partner named barney frank. barney had brought many great qualities to this. one thing he did understand -- and gene as well -- you don't get this all the time in the house -- is understanding the senate which is not an easy thing to do. but barney was an insufferable and incredible partner. we never could have done this without him and i don't want

this gathering to conclude without me at least giving the opportunity to public setting for the first time to say that gene and to his staff to dave and others, particularly to barney, that without his cooperation and support, we would have never gotten through this. so my hat's off to barney. sorry he is not here today to join in on this discussion but a he was great ally in this process. and thank you, gene, and amy, and my staff. >> just two quick points. one is that barney actually was invited, wanted to come and couldn't come, and the second is i love bob so much i won't even reply to that last shot at tom mann, and i will still recommend that you buy the book, and -- that's loyalty or foolishness on my part. i do want to read one paragraph

before you go out and buy the book. the paragraph reads: a final curiosity about dodd-frank. the big substantial and congresses sequential new law never penetrated the public conscious. in wasn't even well understood by most of to members of the house and senate who voted for or against it. all of its complex provisions were never carefully deflected in house or senate hearings or by the pop already news reed meada. you don't have to be one those of people. you can buy bob's book right now. i want to thank our distinguished panel, tom mann, christopher dodd, and bob kaiser. thank you all for coming. [applause]

>> on your screen, author of "0 a long way gone "memoirs of a boy soldier. your sect book is coming out. why did you choose to make it a novel? >> well, the first of all i wanted to depart from the memoir, the nonfiction, and the second book is about a lot of people, from my experiences going back home after war, and there's a composite of a lot of things and i wanted to be able to have the freedom to play around with words and images more so that's why it's fictionalized. >> what kind of freedom does writing a novel give you rather than nonfiction? >> well, with a novel, for me particularly, there's a room to play with language more. and to actually maybe extend certain things, certain occurrences, and expand them a little bit more, maybe dramatize

them a little bit more, and also tying things that are not necessarily related to the same time period but are still current. so in way, that's what i really wanted to do in this novel, where i'm talking about things that existed before the war, and then after the war they existed again at a different magnitude. so try to put them together in a way that it allows me to do that. >> what is empire in the novel? >> it's a town that is in sierra leon but looked at in a fictional way. in a remote part of the country that people don't hear about. please that were devastated by the war more strongly. people go back home and try to live there again. starting from scratch. mam going back home to your village that had been destroyed by war, and you return and it's overgrown, and you got to start from that. and how do you do that? with your family.

how do you find a way to defend your family? how do you actually live next door to your neighbor who has been your enemy during the war, and how do your weave the fabric of the community back together again? what do you lose? that do you gain? what -- how you get around all of this. that's what i discuss. >> after "a long way gone" was published. your first transcribe back to sierra leone-what was that like? >> was very, very difficult in the sense that i was going back to a place that -- i was a boy soldier and function as a child. and i was going back as a young adult, who had been -- had written -- so it was very difficult just to look at the places. it brought back a lot of difficult memories. and people recognize me as well. >> are you a celebrity there?

>> yes, yes, i am. i am to some extent but i try to hide under the radar so when i'm there i'm in my flip-flops and shorts and i speak the lange well so i just try to be a regular person because it's good for my writing. want to observe without people staring at me. i'm interested. and so i become a regular person. >> now, radiance of tomorrow is coming out in january of 201. have you finished the book? >> yes, i have. it's coming out with just looking for a cover. we already have some -- this is just a mock -- >> what we're seeing here in this little booklet is not the cover? >> you would have the type that you have on there will be -- this picture will be on the back and then another cover on the front that's very different from this one of this is just the first five chapters to give

people a test of it but it's done. >> is this book written more in the tradition of sierra leone rather than "a long way gone"? >> it's written in story-telling way. everything if write is like that to me, when you've write about any human experience, you have two choices. i have a political background so you can write boot it in big termed and make kind of like take the humanity out of it or a beautiful, simple story, and people can draw those concludes you want them to draw. you don't need to give them the theory about x, y, z, the political climate in this country is like this. i would just describe how the audience and the public and the people who live in that country -- how this affects them, and then the reader would know. so, for example, i always make an example, instead of saying that john cried. i would show john crying so the

read we're know john is crying. i don't have to tell them john is crying but experience what is happening. and this comes from their original store-telling. when you're telling people story you have to capture their imagination and bring them so they can see, headquarters smell, -- see, hear, smell, and be part of the experience. so have to tap into their imagination. >> where did the title come from? >> the title comes from somewhere in the book where there's a strong character, woman, based on my grandmother, she is trying to tell the old story to some of the old people and really comes from particular event inside the book where she is telling a story about why people should continue being hopeful. >> you talk in this -- in your second book, radiance of tomorrow, about the war that never ends. you make a mention of the civil war, the ten-year war that has

really never ended. >> yes, because when wars end, and -- it's kind of devastation that sort of the physical wounds are the ones that are more visible and that can heal quicker. everybody can see that. but internal wounds, the psychological ones and all the things that have happened, they take a much longer time. so the war -- wars may end, but all the things are continuing to brew under the table, in people, and all of these things. so that takes a much longer time. while that is going on people are still trying to fine a way to live together, because you cannot put your life on hold before you continue living. you continue living why you try to mend what has been broken. so it's a very, very difficult thing and very careful thing, requiress alet of patience, requires people come bag into society people willing to look

at them differently. because always be -- not be able to live in peace next to them. so you have to find a way to reconcile with this to some extent. >> have you reconciled yourself from this? being a boy soldier? >> to some extent in the sense that there's nothing i can do to undo what happened. but with the memories you can never forget so you learn to live with the enemy arrives war and you learn to not react because you're not in control of what triggers it. what triggers an emotion from the war, flashback or nightmare, have no control. it could be the simplest thing by somebody walking really fast. so all i have control is not reaction and thinking i'm standing on the corner of some street in washington, dc in new york and somebody walks past in and they're jogging, putting it

in a different context. and the difficulty of living with the million riz of war. -- with memories of war and they're with you for the rest of your life and you have to learn how to deal with so it you don't pass it on to people close to your and your family. >> what were your experiences of writing along way gone and radiance of tomorrow? >> they're very difference because the long way gong, i never intended to publish it. so just to really find a way to fine-tune my thinking in case i'm asked about what went on in my country on a panel, and i could speak five or ten minutes in a very sharp, distinct way. and then later oregon it became a -- later on it became a book i agreed to publish. and so this was wherein when i was an undergreat. this has been written in dish don't in the -- six countries, actually. in the united states, new york,

i wrote in central african republican in italy, in sierra sierra leon. in as spend, -- as pen, california. >> have you gotten used to living in the states? >> yes. i'm an american -- i live between the two cultures because i'm part of two cultures, and i would have lived in the united states about the same years that i lived in sierra lee -- leeown, and it's wonderful for my life, for my thinking and my writing. >> how has a long way gone changed you, changed your family because of its success? >> changed my life completely. the first book, when the book came out we all cautious, because of the content, people may not really read it. and then it had a life of its

own beyond what i expected. so i really did not understand what it meant to be a public person. so i had a few mistake i have made. i'm just a regular kid, so i -- and i just got here from college so when the book came out, a friend of mine, college buddy and i moved into an apartment and set up a telephone and if give them my name didn't ask for private number, and all of a sit we started get these calls, 20, 30, 40 calls a day. and we're like, oh, how are they doing that? so, we realize, you're famous. so, it was a discovery for me to realize what does that really mean, and also when "the new york times" magazine had its photograph of me on the front published, and i was on the subway in new york, and one sunday morning, and i'm sitting there, and literally everybody on the -- saw my face right there on the train. and so i just -- funny to me.

i played around with it because i'm a simple person and i will remain that. so it was interesting. but illit changed my -- but it change mid life tremendously. >> it is in the end or maybe the beginning of another story, every story begins and ends with a woman, mother, a grandmother, girl, a child, every story is a birth. >> i believe that strongly. i think, again, going to the idea of origin of store-telling. every story, you start with something that you're discovering and then at the end you -- it's a full-grown. so everybody story has given birth to something. an idea. a thought, introducing people new -- new landscapes. so you're bringing them alive. but because every story is a birth, and women are the one who give birth to all of us in the

world. so, every story starts with that. whether directly or indirectly comes from that. and this is from the oral tradition of story-telling that i grew up being part of. and my grandmother also being a very strong effect in my life, and my mother, philosopher, understand ten years from now and i will understand it. so that is what this is. >> what is sierra leone like today? >> it's coming along. we put the war behind, and the war end officially in 2002, and since then a lot of development has been coming slowly. alet of young people like myself in order to return become and dog projects or stud studies, small businesses but the political climate is funny because the politicians are not the ones we want in terms of people who can really move this country forward, who can

actually be of service of the people and the country. so that is still a problem and these are the reason highs the war started, we didn't have a government that cared for the people. it's a very small country so if somebody is really interested in shaping this country to bet -- be one of the best countries in the world, it can be done but we have leaders that care for themes and how wealthy they want to be from serving. so we have to redefine leadership. it doesn't mean when you're in power you're almighty. it's called public service. not there to be a tyrant or to do whatever you like and to embezzle the funds. so these are the problems we're having. but the country is very safe. we have one of the free elections now. i with no violence at all. so it's been quite -- they're moving along slowly. >> do you still see lat of amputees? ...